NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that the Democrats have a slim majority in Congress, the Democratic Congress (+ Constitution) vs the Bush Administration dick waving contests have started. And the political phrase of the day is "don't tell the generals how to run the war." Never mind that no one is telling the generals how to run the "war" (well except Bush who "transitions" out any general who stops being a yes-man).

What the Democratic Congress is doing is telling the generals, and the administration, how to end the "war," because no one else knows how the fuck to do it and in fact have every intention of forcing its continuance. Not suspicious at all that.

I loved Cheney's "Stop Checking and Balancing!" rant at Congress. :D

Doing Constitutional Duty = Treason.

Did anyone catch the John Stewart interview with Bolton? (it was re-aired last night) and the interview with a Lincoln historian? Bolton (and subsequently the whole administration) ended up looking like the asshats they are.

to the title no one don't see two armys fighting just a lot of shit flying about

Now that the Democrats have a slim majority in Congress, the Democratic Congress (+ Constitution) vs the Bush Administration dick waving contests have started. And the political phrase of the day is "don't tell the generals how to run the war." Never mind that no one is telling the generals how to run the "war" (well except Bush who "transitions" out any general who stops being a yes-man).

What the Democratic Congress is doing is telling the generals, and the administration, how to end the "war," because no one else knows how the fuck to do it and in fact have every intention of forcing its continuance. Not suspicious at all that.

Amen to you brother. Oh sure, they will bring the issue of our casualties as a reason for ending the war, but they have forgotten that they voted to give the president the authority for war. And just like in Viet-Nam, instead of letting the generals fight the war, they are too busy "retiring" those that do not agree with the administration's view. My message to the executive and legislative branch is, if you really care about our troops, let them do their jobs, which you sent them to do; so they can come back home sooner.

Vic

I firmly believe the Democrats are the better party to fight the "War on Terror"

I feel they'll do more to defend THIS country...(border security, port/airport security, chemical/nuclear plant security, landmark/large city securty...etc, etc)

I also feel they'll leave the Cold War toys alone, and fight this "war" as it should be fought, with good intelligence that directs minimal force for maximum effect (ie Cruise Missile through Osama's cave roof).

If the Democrats can get us out of Iraq, then I'm all for it, because it will mean we can shift the focus back to Afghanistan where it BELONGS.

Let Iran and Saudi Arabia proxy fight each other over Iraq till oil hits $100 a barrel...the worst that can happen is that our politicians get off their asses regarding alternative energy.

The Republicans like to think they're the best party to fight this war...but they let Bush lead them down a blind alley in Iraq. Worst move EVER. Did Iran a favor by taking out their blood enemy for them, and gave Osama the perfect recruiting poster of "Western Agression"

Time to cut our losses, before the "war" truly becomes unwinnable.

Amen to you brother. Oh sure, they will bring the issue of our casualties as a reason for ending the war, but they have forgotten that they voted to give the president the authority for war. And just like in Viet-Nam, instead of letting the generals fight the war, they are too busy "retiring" those that do not agree with the administration's view. My message to the executive and legislative branch is, if you really care about our troops, let them do their jobs, which you sent them to do; so they can come back home sooner.

Vic
That totally misses the point of my entire post. Who the fuck are we at war with? What is the troops' job? No one fucking knows and anyone who says they know are talking out their ass and repeating talking out the ass talking points.

Cheese and crackers.

That's who we're at war with.

That totally misses the point of my entire post. Who the fuck are we at war with? What is the troops' job? No one fucking knows and anyone who says they know are talking out their ass and repeating talking out the ass talking points.

like to hit who ever came up with War on Terror it not a war
look up the word war in a dictionary an it tells you what it is

We are at war with the Iraqi Insurgency that exists because of our presence in Iraq! And we're not leaving Iraq until we win! :mad:

...even though they only exist to fight us.... :p

Doing Constitutional Duty = Treason.

Did anyone catch the John Stewart interview with Bolton? (it was re-aired last night) and the interview with a Lincoln historian? Bolton (and subsequently the whole administration) ended up looking like the asshats they are.

Bolton's erroneous claim in regards to Lincoln may have served as an easy statement to rebut, but it did not detract from his central argument. Stewart relied on trite tricks and jokes in order to assert his points whereas Bolton employed logic and reason. He illustrated how the ability of the president to mold his cabinet and trim the extravagant bureaucracy is a necessary element of our democratic system. Have you ever heard of the phrase "to the winner belong the spoils"? Such a system was introduced with great effect by Jackson in 1829; we should not uproot such a functional and fundamental system in order to strip away another crucial element of our democracy.

like to hit who ever came up with War on Terror it not a war
look up the word war in a dictionary an it tells you what it is

War
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>

Now that the Democrats have a slim majority in Congress, the Democratic Congress (+ Constitution) vs the Bush Administration dick waving contests have started.

So has the TPH dick-stroking, it seems. :rolleyes:

Set aside the Vasoline and the Kleenex for a moment and actually read the Constitution.

War
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>

when has Terror became states or a nation with it's own flag

Bolton's erroneous claim in regards to Lincoln may have served as an easy statement to rebut, but it did not detract from his central argument. Stewart relied on trite tricks and jokes in order to assert his points whereas Bolton employed logic and reason. He illustrated how the ability of the president to mold his cabinet and trim the extravagant bureaucracy is a necessary element of our democratic system. Have you ever heard of the phrase "to the winner belong the spoils"? Such a system was introduced with great effect by Jackson in 1829; we should not uproot such a functional and fundamental system in order to strip away another crucial element of our democracy.

I like you. You're silly. :)

War
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>

War against terror :D

when has Terror became states or a nation with it's own flag

Read full definition.

War against terror :D

But, really, it shouldn't be called a war on terror. It should be called The Perpetual State of Armed Conflict With Groups Which Support or Engage in Terrorist Activities . It just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

Read full definition.

don't class it as that too
i only class it as a pile of shit that we got push into

Bolton's erroneous claim in regards to Lincoln may have served as an easy statement to rebut, but it did not detract from his central argument. Stewart relied on trite tricks and jokes in order to assert his points whereas Bolton employed logic and reason. He illustrated how the ability of the president to mold his cabinet and trim the extravagant bureaucracy is a necessary element of our democratic system. Have you ever heard of the phrase "to the winner belong the spoils"? Such a system was introduced with great effect by Jackson in 1829; we should not uproot such a functional and fundamental system in order to strip away another crucial element of our democracy.

Of course, you know it was only the power of the patriot act that allowed the attorney General to appoint new attorneys without congressional approval that allowed him to do any firings at all. And that one's been around a lot shorter of a time.

Not to mention the spoils system has been in contention since it was established.

like to hit who ever came up with War on Terror it not a war
look up the word war in a dictionary an it tells you what it is

No less so than such phenomena as the War on Drugs, War on the Middle Class or War on Poverty.

I continue to maintain that American English has developed its own, new colloquial definition of the word war, which does not necessarily fit the old definition, instead, now the word is used to define any massive, concerted national effort to defeat something, or effect some sort of change.

Bolton's erroneous claim in regards to Lincoln may have served as an easy statement to rebut, but it did not detract from his central argument. Stewart relied on trite tricks and jokes in order to assert his points whereas Bolton employed logic and reason. He illustrated how the ability of the president to mold his cabinet and trim the extravagant bureaucracy is a necessary element of our democratic system. Have you ever heard of the phrase "to the winner belong the spoils"? Such a system was introduced with great effect by Jackson in 1829; we should not uproot such a functional and fundamental system in order to strip away another crucial element of our democracy.

I noted Bolton's argument perfectly, and I considered it quite carefully.
In summary, he stated that the governmental bureacracy should be politicized in order to be in the former ambassadors words, "sympathetic to the views of the president." Effectively stating that all government bureacrats should be employed using political viewpoint as a qualification. In any other work place, that would be seen as discrimination. But that's besides the point here.

Politicizing bureacracy, especially in the case that brought this issue to our attention, the fired attorneys, is not a good thing for a liberal democratic institution. These state attorneys reside over investigations against legislators of the country. Why would you want these attorneys to be biased for or against these legislators? They are supposed to be objective and unbiased in thier duties. That is what a bureacrat is supposed to be. The minority party legislators would invariably be treated with more prejudice than the legislators who the attorneys are supposed to be "sympathetic" to. What would be the chances of a president ever being impeached if the prosecutors are "sympathetic to his views"?

Not only does it mean that there is no difference of opinion within government bodies, thereby destroying discussion and consensus within the executive branch. All this seems to lead to further centralizing power within the executive branch, specifically the president.

This all seems to run perpendicular to the "checks and balances" that American democracy seems to pride itself on.

To me, it doesn't seem like politicizing bureacrats is much of a "functional and fundamental system" that is a "crucial element of (y)our democracy". Rather it is a ploy to destroy the basic tenets of your democracy, and turn it into an elected dictatorship, where congress and the judiciary and constantly thwarted by uncooperative partisan bureacrats.

Amen to you brother. Oh sure, they will bring the issue of our casualties as a reason for ending the war, but they have forgotten that they voted to give the president the authority for war. If certain conditions were met. They weren't.

And just like in Viet-Nam, instead of letting the generals fight the war, they are too busy "retiring" those that do not agree with the administration's view. My message to the executive and legislative branch is, if you really care about our troops, let them do their jobs, which you sent them to do; so they can come back home sooner.If you really care about the troops, end the war now, so they can come back home now.

No less so than such phenomena as the War on Drugs, War on the Middle Class or War on Poverty.

I continue to maintain that American English has developed its own, new colloquial definition of the word war, which does not necessarily fit the old definition, instead, now the word is used to define any massive, concerted national effort to defeat something, or effect some sort of change.

Americans all ways have to come up with somethings new if the old one don't fit

Politicizing bureacracy, especially in the case that brought this issue to our attention, the fired attorneys, is not a good thing for a liberal democratic institution. These state attorneys reside over investigations against legislators of the country. Why would you want these attorneys to be biased for or against these legislators? They are supposed to be objective and unbiased in thier duties. That is what a bureacrat is supposed to be. The minority party legislators would invariably be treated with more prejudice than the legislators who the attorneys are supposed to be "sympathetic" to. What would be the chances of a president ever being impeached if the prosecutors are "sympathetic to his views"?

The executive branch, like every other branch of government, must conform to the majority will of the people. We have an excellent system for ensuring that this remains the case: democracy. The people freely vote for the candidate whom they believe should ascend to the presidency; by doing this, they implicitly acknowledge the desirability of his ideology. By doing so, they consent to allowing that way of thinking to pervade every nook and cranny of the executive branch. A sprawling bureaucratic morass would endanger the freedoms we hold dear by impeding the president; prosecutors cannot be held liable to the people and thus may pursue their own agenda, even if it runs contrary to the mandate of the populace. This imperils our freedoms by diluting the power of the people. If the president we elect can be halted by political opponents whom he is powerless to fire, what would that say about democracy? Not a very good message, I'm sure.

Not only does it mean that there is no difference of opinion within government bodies, thereby destroying discussion and consensus within the executive branch. All this seems to lead to further centralizing power within the executive branch, specifically the president.

I can understand how it would destroy discussion, but I fail to see how it would eliminate consensus. If anything, having multiple people with the same viewpoints seems to be the very definition of consensus. Furthermore, the centralization of power within the executive branch is a positive circumstance. It means that the executive branch more closely reflects the will of the people rather than reflecting a smörgåsbord of ideas which aren't necessarily held by the people. When the people elect a president, they also choose an ideology; they wish for that ideology to lead them into the future. The bureaucracy which goes against that is a rotten relic from another age which needs to be expunged from the system.

This all seems to run perpendicular to the "checks and balances" that American democracy seems to pride itself on.

There should be checks and balances between the different branches of government. However, you shouldn't but checks on balances on democracy itself.

The best way to end a war is to win it. The fastest way to win a war is to erradicate your enemy with every weapon available and do it in one strike. Don't think that means that you can just blow up one stronghold and everything will be just fine. Most enemies (any smart enough to become a real threat) are spread out so it if you don't get them all on the first pass the war goes on. If you pull out the enemy might not follow your lead and end the fighting and so the war goes on. Pull all of your forces back to your own borders to have them stand shoulder to shoulder and interdict the space surrounding your nation and you make yourself one big target for that one big attack, besides no Department of Defense has ever won a war.

You don't win wars by standing guard, you win wars by going out and finding your enemy and killing him before he can kill you.

Bolton's erroneous claim in regards to Lincoln may have served as an easy statement to rebut, but it did not detract from his central argument.
Too bad his central argument was full of shit. The president's position does not require him to surround himself with people who agree with everything he says nor to only represent those people who voted for them and those people who didn't, to put it as Stewart did, "can go dip their balls in laval."

Stewart relied on trite tricks and jokes in order to assert his points whereas Bolton employed logic and reason.
1% logic and reason 99% pure ignorance.

You don't win wars by standing guard, you win wars by going out and finding your enemy and killing him before he can kill you.You don't win wars by creating additional enemies via international bumbling, either.

Pfft. Congressional Democrats don't understand the Constitution any more than the Bush Administration does.

Amen to you brother. Oh sure, they will bring the issue of our casualties as a reason for ending the war, but they have forgotten that they voted to give the president the authority for war. And just like in Viet-Nam, instead of letting the generals fight the war, they are too busy "retiring" those that do not agree with the administration's view. My message to the executive and legislative branch is, if you really care about our troops, let them do their jobs, which you sent them to do; so they can come back home sooner.

Vic
I really, really hate this pseudo-argument (the part I bolded). It is a weak cop-out that only side-steps the issues at hand and means nothing in and of itself.

The troops who are now in harm's way are not - repeat, NOT - in charge of the "job" they are doing. They are peons, low-level workers, waiting for orders and instructions from higher up the chain of command - orders that come from so far above their level that they have no connection whatsoever to the source, let alone any input on decision-making. I am sick of this bullshit claim that those who wish to end the war are interfering with what the troops are doing. You know what the troops are doing? They're doing WHAT BUSH TELLS THEM TO. Not THEIR job - HIS job. And HE is fucking it up. What the US armed forces do best is carry out orders. Not think creatively. Not use personal initiative. Not identify their own goals and work towards them. They carry out the will of their commanders, and if their commanders tell them to attack Baghdad, they will do that. If the commanders the very next day tell them to pack up and return to the US, they will do that, too. Without question. THAT is their job. The only limitation on that which is within their own control is that they are not obligated to carry out illegal orders. But everything else they MUST do, or else, in that case, they would not be doing their job.

Bush's mad dream for Iraq is not the troops' job. Their job is to carry out orders. Even if the order is to come home. The contention that issuing an order to return home is somehow interfering with the troops is nonsense, plain and simple.

Doing Constitutional Duty = Treason.

Did anyone catch the John Stewart interview with Bolton? (it was re-aired last night) and the interview with a Lincoln historian? Bolton (and subsequently the whole administration) ended up looking like the asshats they are.

That Bolton interview was very 1984, and I mean the Orwell version, not the Reagan version (though at times it was difficult to tell the difference).

I loved Cheney's "Stop Checking and Balancing!" rant at Congress. :D

STOP checking and Balancing!?!! :confused: :eek:

I'd like to see that rant

Pfft. Congressional Democrats don't understand the Constitution any more than the Bush Administration does.

Yeah, but them not bending over and taking it from the Bush Administration like the Congressional Republicans do means they are doing damn good job of pulling off their Constitutional duty.

If you really care about the troops, end the war now, so they can come back home now.
I refer to Sunday's Doonesbury (http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db070401.gif)

Soldier:So if congress DOESN'T support the troops, I go home to my family, but if they DO support us, we have to keep returning to the meat grinder?

Sarge:Uh... Right.

Soldier: Okay, I don't mean to sound ungrateful...

Sarge: Permission to think it through denied.

We should stay and fight anyone who opposes us. I hope that we stay in Iraq for decades. My as of yet unborn children should have the opportunity to grow up and kill Jihadists on foreign soil. Anybody who wants to get out of Iraq is a pussy. Not only should we be in Iraq but Syria, Iran, Sudan, North Korea and everywhere that human rights are violated as a matter of policy. This is our duty as Americans because America is more than just a piece of land, it is an idea. It is the idea that men are born with equal and inalienable rights. It is our duty to export this America to the entire world. We must liberate the oppressed. If the oppressed do not realize that they are oppressed then we must teach them. I hate the pussies in our government that stood back during Tianemen Square and the democratic revolt in Hungary.

Nobody should be persecuted because they are a Shi'ite or Sunni. That is BS.

I think George Bush is the worst President we ever had for everything except these wonderful wars.

We should stay and fight anyone who opposes us. I hope that we stay in Iraq for decades. My as of yet unborn children should have the opportunity to grow up and kill Jihadists on foreign soil. Anybody who wants to get out of Iraq is a pussy. Not only should we be in Iraq but Syria, Iran, Sudan, North Korea and everywhere that human rights are violated as a matter of policy. This is our duty as Americans because America is more than just a piece of land, it is an idea. It is the idea that men are born with equal and inalienable rights. It is our duty to export this America to the entire world. We must liberate the oppressed. If the oppressed do not realize that they are oppressed then we must teach them. I hate the pussies in our government that stood back during Tianemen Square and the democratic revolt in Hungary.

Nobody should be persecuted because they are a Shi'ite or Sunni. That is BS.

I think George Bush is the worst President we ever had for everything except these wonderful wars.

Your civil rights are worse than they are in Canada. Ergo, Canada has a duty to invade you. And, as your blood-thirst implies, kill every last one of you. By YOUR logic. I, however, am a human being.

The executive branch, like every other branch of government, must conform to the majority will of the people.

How would the general public know who they support if all of the lawsuits are against the main opposition? That would allow the non electedside to look corrupt and the elected side to look good, hence allowing it to be voted in again and again and again...

We have an excellent system for ensuring that this remains the case: democracy. The people freely vote for the candidate whom they believe should ascend to the presidency; by doing this, they implicitly acknowledge the desirability of his ideology.

Yet it would be a democracy in even worse shape than now as the general public would have little accuracy in information when regarding the government.

By doing so, they consent to allowing that way of thinking to pervade every nook and cranny of the executive branch. A sprawling bureaucratic morass would endanger the freedoms we hold dear by impeding the president;

Usually oversight (which requires some of that 'sprawling bureaucratic morass') is needed you know, so that corrupt practices are avoided.

Impeding your president from what? Trying to assure permanant supremacy for his party; Not by making sure that he/she does a good job and promotes making the country better off but by misinforming the general public, deluding various internal groups and staying backwater in opinions?

prosecutors cannot be held liable to the people and thus may pursue their own agenda, even if it runs contrary to the mandate of the populace.

Why should they not be held liable?

By saying that they should be able to follow their agenda if was not in accordance with what they promised the general public does not seem to be compatible with the people voting for someones idealogy.

This imperils our freedoms by diluting the power of the people. If the president we elect can be halted by political opponents whom he is powerless to fire, what would that say about democracy? Not a very good message, I'm sure.

Actually it would say that there are limits to what one person can legally do which is good in preventing a virtual dictatorship to form.

I can understand how it would destroy discussion

Which is vital in being able to adapt to new situations and generally find a more efficient way of running things.

but I fail to see how it would eliminate consensus.

Actually it would enhance it; through making all views of a very small range. Which would enhance the level of general corruption.

If anything, having multiple people with the same viewpoints seems to be the very definition of consensus.

Actually it is usually thinking all the participants views, which are different, and then usually getting a comprimise done.

Furthermore, the centralization of power within the executive branch is a positive circumstance.

Some centralisation is good but the extent which it seems to be happening is bad, especially when you consider that due to the politicisation of it you would tend to get only one particular side (stupid two party politics) only ever elected. And considering a lot of executive power in the U.S has strong political PR opportunities it allows the executive to promote it's own side to a degree beyond what they should be able to.

It means that the executive branch more closely reflects the will of the people rather than reflecting a smörgåsbord of ideas

It insulates the executive from potential bad PR and allows the excessive delusions to form.

which aren't necessarily held by the people. When the people elect a president, they also choose an ideology;

Usually they choose an individual or a set of policies, only a small select people vote for an ideology, most vote against an ideology. Which usually plays into the negative ads employed

they wish for that ideology to lead them into the future. The bureaucracy which goes against that is a rotten relic from another age which needs to be expunged from the system.

Well political party dictatorships, a single party majority with all other parties having extremely limited power, so being a single party state in all but name, can be in the future. Also don't forget that this is not reducing cost of supporting these positions, it is just replacing a group with either neutral views or overall neutrality with one aligned to only one particular group's view.

There should be checks and balances between the different branches of government. However, you shouldn't but checks on balances on democracy itself.

You need the ability of a branch to make sure that another does not blindly goes wherever it wants, hence allowing at most all views to be heard or at the very least two major opinions to form and be discussed.

Your civil rights are worse than they are in Canada. Ergo, Canada has a duty to invade you. And, as your blood-thirst implies, kill every last one of you. By YOUR logic. I, however, am a human being.

So New Zealand should invade Australia?

Intersting....

That Bolton interview was very 1984, and I mean the Orwell version, not the Reagan version (though at times it was difficult to tell the difference).

I wish I could see a copy or a Youtube of that interview.

So New Zealand should invade Australia?

Intersting....

By his logic, any nation that has better civil rights than any other nation should make war on it. His logic, not mine.

Oh I know that you pointing out that person's logic but it would be a funny thing to see (my one).

I wish I could see a copy or a Youtube of that interview.

Daily show website. Search Bolton after clicking "more video's".

Daily show website. Search Bolton after clicking "more video's".

It was a good thing when aus got the daily show.

Now that the Democrats have a slim majority in Congress, the Democratic Congress (+ Constitution) vs the Bush Administration dick waving contests have started. And the political phrase of the day is "don't tell the generals how to run the war." Never mind that no one is telling the generals how to run the "war" (well except Bush who "transitions" out any general who stops being a yes-man).

What the Democratic Congress is doing is telling the generals, and the administration, how to end the "war," because no one else knows how the fuck to do it and in fact have every intention of forcing its continuance. Not suspicious at all that.

Yeah. Gotta love how Bush complains that the liberals are underfunding the soldiers, when they passed a supplemental, which he vetoed (:rolleyes:).

But, really, it shouldn't be called a war on terror. It should be called The Perpetual State of Armed Conflict With Groups Which Support or Engage in Terrorist Activities . It just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

FreedomAndGlory agreeing with Corny.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

War against terror :D

Continuing in the critically acclaimed smash hit series after "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs," eh Corny?

FreedomAndGlory agreeing with Corny.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

Is FG a bit trollish? His previous (large) post seemed a bit too strange in retrospect.

Is FG a bit trollish? His previous post seemed a bit too strange in retrospect.

Saying FG is a bit trollish is the same as saying Tony Blair and John Howard kiss Bush's ass "a bit".

Saying FG is a bit trollish is the same as saying Tony Blair and John Howard kiss Bush's ass "a bit".

Brown lipstick sadly still seems to be in fashion with Blair and Howard.

Though to be fair Blair was more performing a certain act that, whilst involving lips was a more brutal and involved the front section of GWB.

I firmly believe the Democrats are the better party to fight the "War on Terror"

I feel they'll do more to defend THIS country...(border security, port/airport security, chemical/nuclear plant security, landmark/large city securty...etc, etc)

I also feel they'll leave the Cold War toys alone, and fight this "war" as it should be fought, with good intelligence that directs minimal force for maximum effect (ie Cruise Missile through Osama's cave roof).

If the Democrats can get us out of Iraq, then I'm all for it, because it will mean we can shift the focus back to Afghanistan where it BELONGS.

Let Iran and Saudi Arabia proxy fight each other over Iraq till oil hits $100 a barrel...the worst that can happen is that our politicians get off their asses regarding alternative energy.

The Republicans like to think they're the best party to fight this war...but they let Bush lead them down a blind alley in Iraq. Worst move EVER. Did Iran a favor by taking out their blood enemy for them, and gave Osama the perfect recruiting poster of "Western Agression"

Time to cut our losses, before the "war" truly becomes unwinnable.


What makes you think the Dems will do more? Have they done more in the past? Don't think so, especially after The WTC bombings, when Clinton had tons of time to do those things, and failed, allowing the Cole suicide bombing.

Cold war toys? the hell? We havnt nuked anyone yet. Also using a cruise missile MIGHT work if terrorists weren't so careless about dieing, because they'll just go to 'paradise' whilst becoming a martyr. Now good Intel, yes thats completely agreeable. What happened when Clinton used cruise missiles against Osama? not very successful....

I'm tired of defending the Iraq mission, therefor i won't.

YAY, lets let a massive war occur in the middle east thus raising the price of oil to a huge amount, whilst our economy fails. It will take probably 20 years to get to a completely new way of transportation or some revolutionary fuel that dosnt pollute and such. Best thing to do is to keep the Mid east stable while we still need it, after that, just make sure the wars don't reach European or American interests.

You're right, we should have invaded Afghanistan, then Iran, then Iraq, then Sudan.

:)

Bolton's erroneous claim in regards to Lincoln may have served as an easy statement to rebut, but it did not detract from his central argument. Stewart relied on trite tricks and jokes in order to assert his points whereas Bolton employed logic and reason. He illustrated how the ability of the president to mold his cabinet and trim the extravagant bureaucracy is a necessary element of our democratic system. Have you ever heard of the phrase "to the winner belong the spoils"? Such a system was introduced with great effect by Jackson in 1829; we should not uproot such a functional and fundamental system in order to strip away another crucial element of our democracy.

Heard of the Pendleton and Hatch Acts? They were designed to end the system that Jackson created.

Can we goddamn have President Pelosi already?

Snip.

The world is not for you to use. This diatribe of yours reminds me of something the Germans had a word for in 1930: Lebensraum. They lost. So would you.

The world is not for you to use. This diatribe of yours reminds me of something the Germans had a word for in 1930: Lebensraum. They lost. So would you.

The U.S.A people want to have more living space?

To be fair it would take a lot more military might to stop the U.S.A from doing what it wants than it did for mk3 Germany.

What makes you think the Dems will do more?

How could they do less than the Republicans?

Besides...it was the Republicans who had control of Congress until quite recently, and last I checked there were plenty of recommendations by the 9/11 comission regarding domestic security that the Republicans simply hadn't bothered with.

Republicans ought to change their rhetoric: "Strong on Defense...when it suits us."

Have they done more in the past? Don't think so, especially after The WTC bombings, when Clinton had tons of time to do those things, and failed, allowing the Cole suicide bombing.

A domestic bombing of a major building, and the security measures that may have been altered as a result, are hardly applicable to the U.S.S. Cole, a naval vessel, attacked half a world away.

"Allowing"...:rolleyes:

Cold war toys? the hell? We havnt nuked anyone yet.

I'm not refering to nukes, I'm refering to the hardware (tanks, aircraft, etc.) currently tied up in Iraq.

Also using a cruise missile MIGHT work if terrorists weren't so careless about dieing, because they'll just go to 'paradise' whilst becoming a martyr. Now good Intel, yes thats completely agreeable. What happened when Clinton used cruise missiles against Osama? not very successful....

We were doing pretty damn well in Afghanistan until Iraq fouled things up...and we were doing it while still maintaining the ability to project power, something we cannot do with 150,000 troops stationed in Iraq.

There's a reason Iran and NK have been more cavalier lately...they know we don't have the resources to back up our threats so long as we are in Iraq.

Of course cruise missiles alone won't do anything. I never said American troops weren't needed in Afghanistan. They simply need to have greater support, something that cannot be accomplished with our Iraqi committments.

Running around in Iraq with a sizeable fraction of our standing ground forces certainly hasn't been successful either, so why not go back to what was working before Bush got distracted?

I'm tired of defending the Iraq mission, therefor i won't.

Good decision.

YAY, lets let a massive war occur in the middle east thus raising the price of oil to a huge amount, whilst our economy fails. It will take probably 20 years to get to a completely new way of transportation or some revolutionary fuel that dosnt pollute and such.

I sometimes feel there is nothing this nation needs more than the kick in the pants a large economic recession would provide. Too many Americans think they are owed the world.

That said, I think you overestimate the effects of such events on the U.S.

As for war in the Middle East...if Islam is intent on a violent schism, there is nothing the U.S. can do to stop it. Far better to make the results impact us as little as possible.

Best thing to do is to keep the Mid east stable while we still need it, after that, just make sure the wars don't reach European or American interests.

See...you want to pretend like the Arab nations are our friends, then stab them in the back when it suits you.

I'd much prefer to tell them upfront that we're tired of their bullshit, and to hell with their fucking oil.

You're right, we should have invaded Afghanistan, then Iran, then Iraq, then Sudan.

Or, if we were going to futz around with nation building, we could have invaded Afghanistan and only Afghanistan...one nation at a time sounds much more practical, if we have to go about it that way.

Can we goddamn have President Pelosi already?

I just threw up a little in my mouth. :(

I just threw up a little in my mouth. :(

How about we have an Independent president for once? the USA is a two-party system, and it's the USA, which means it should have more major parties.

VOTE INDEPENDENT! DESTROY THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS!!!

How about we have an Independent president for once? the USA is a two-party system, and it's the USA, which means it should have more major parties.

VOTE INDEPENDENT! DESTROY THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS!!!

Best option of all.

No less so than such phenomena as the War on Drugs, War on the Middle Class or War on Poverty.

I continue to maintain that American English has developed its own, new colloquial definition of the word war, which does not necessarily fit the old definition, instead, now the word is used to define any massive, concerted national effort to defeat something, or effect some sort of change.

In other words:
Doublespeak plus good!

I just threw up a little in my mouth. :(

???

I'm tired of defending the Iraq mission, therefor i won't.

Because you bloody well can't!

Because you bloody well can't!

Exactly.

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show

Q Now, you and the President both have derided the theatrics of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a number of the Democrats, and I don't know if you're being politic with the statement -- I, frankly, need to ask you if you really think it's theatrics, or is this who they really are? Is this what they really intend, to lose this war, to make sure we come home defeated?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the policies that they are recommending would, in fact, produce that result. I think they're -- I've got some friends on the other side of the aisle, and I don't want to question everybody's motives -- I do believe that a significant portion of the Democrats, including, I think, Nancy Pelosi, are adamantly opposed to the war and prepared to pack it in and come home in defeat, rather than put in place or support a policy that will lead to victory. That's a fundamental difference.

Q Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance to the concept of U.S. defeat?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't. It seems to me so abundantly clear, Rush, that we really need to prevail in this conflict, that there's an awful lot riding on it. It's not just about Iraq; it's about our efforts in the global war on terror and that entire part of the world. It affects what's going on in Iran, where we're trying to make sure they don't develop a nuclear weapon. You can imagine the extent to which the Iranians would be heartened in that effort if they see us withdraw from Iraq, next door. We've got Musharraf in Pakistan and Karzai in Afghanistan who put their lives on the line every day, in effect, supporting our efforts to deal with the extremists and the terrorists in that part of world. If they see us bail out in Iraq, they clearly would lose confidence in our capacity to carry through and get the job done.

So it's absolutely essential we do it. I don't know why, what the motive is. They seem to think that we can withdraw from Iraq and walk away from it. They ignore the lessons of the past. Remember what happened in Afghanistan. We had been involved in Afghanistan in the '80s, supporting the Mujahadin against the Soviets and prevailed, we won, everybody walked away. And in the '90s, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, an area for training camps where al Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late '90s in the base from which they launched attacks against the United States on 9/11. So those are very real problems and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point seems to me simply would play right into the hands of al Qaeda.

Fun with Rush and Dick (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070405-3.html)

Snip.

Why do you feel the need to quote the insane? o_O

Why do you feel the need to quote the insane? o_O

To point out how the "Blame the democrats for loosing in Iraq" bandwagon is coming along :)

By the next election all the blame for everything that's happened the last couple of years will be the fault of the democrats... Somehow, it will be...

How about we have an Independent president for once? the USA is a two-party system, and it's the USA, which means it should have more major parties.

VOTE INDEPENDENT! DESTROY THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS!!!

Word. :)

???

!!!

!!!

~~~

~~~

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-005.gifhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-006.gifhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-004.gif

To point out how the "Blame the democrats for loosing in Iraq" bandwagon is coming along :)

By the next election all the blame for everything that's happened the last couple of years will be the fault of the democrats... Somehow, it will be...

They'll start off by saying George W. Bush was really a Democrat. :D

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-005.gifhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-006.gifhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-004.gif

B B B
a a a
d d d
g g g
e e e
r r r